6 comments:

The underlying irony being, of course, that (as is usually the case with articles like this one) the writer presents it as a matter of "old-fashioned gut feeling" versus numbers, when in fact it's pretty clear it's a case of numbers he likes (avg, RBI, W/L) versus numbers he doesn't like or doesn't understand (WAR, OBP, UZR)

batting average is actually pretty complex as to what constitutes an at-bat.

Yeah, I think Moneyball made that point as well. I think that growing up in a baseball culture (which I didn't) deeply ingrains obscure and arbitrary concepts like that of "at-bat" in your mind to the point that they feel like second nature. Like language, in a way.

Articles like DeSmit's are way more entertaining to me than they should be, because I can't help but picture these guys' sense of cosmic dismay upon realizing that critical thought is now a part of their job requirements. And possibly sixth-grade algebra too.